BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2217
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 2217 (Fuentes)
As Amended August 3, 2010
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |71-0 |(April 26, |SENATE: |32-0 |(August 12, |
| | |2010) | | |2010) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: JUD.
SUMMARY : Seeks to statutorily authorize an informal practice by
many courts to appropriately admonish jurors against the use of
electronic and wireless devices to communicate, research, or
disseminate information about an ongoing case. Specifically,
this bill :
1)Requires the court, when admonishing the jury against
conversation pursuant to these provisions, to clearly explain,
as part of the admonishment, that the prohibition of the use
of electronic or wireless devices applies to all forms of
communication, electronic research, or dissemination of
information about a case. The bill would require the officer
in charge of a jury to prevent any use of an electronic or
wireless device to communicate, research, or disseminate
information about a case.
2)Updates existing civil and criminal contempt statutes by
establishing that courts have the authority to hold jurors in
contempt for willfully disobeying a court admonishment
relating to the prohibition of any form of electronic
communication, dissemination of information, or research about
a case.
The Senate amendments add language to avoid chaptering-out
issues with AB 2632 (Davis).
EXISTING LAW requires:
1)The court in a civil proceeding during a jury trial to
admonish the jury that it is their duty not to converse with,
or permit themselves to be addressed by, any other person on
any subject of the trial. The court is required to provide
the admonishment when the jurors are permitted to separate
AB 2217
Page 2
during the trial, and when the case is submitted to the jury.
2)The court in a criminal proceeding during a jury trial to
admonish the jury that it is their duty not to converse with,
or permit themselves to be addressed by, any other person on
any subject of the trial. The court is required to provide
the admonishment after the jury has been sworn and before the
people's opening address, at each adjournment of the court,
and when the jurors are permitted by the court to separate
after the case is submitted to the jury.
3)That an officer in a civil proceeding, having the jury under
his or her charge, shall not permit any communication to be
made to them, or make any himself or herself.
4)That an officer in a criminal proceeding, having the jury
under his or her charge, shall not permit any communication to
be made to them, or make any himself or herself.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill was substantially similar
to the version approved by the Senate.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
COMMENTS : This non-controversial bill seeks to address the
increasing incidence of juror use, of electronic and wireless
devices, to conduct independent research on the internet or
communicate with others about cases. Juror use of this media
may take several forms: jurors conducting independent research
on the case on the Internet; sending e-mails, text messages,
tweets or other communication conveying developments in a trial
or deliberations; or using the camera feature of mobile
technology to record courtroom proceedings.
It is standard procedure for a court to admonish jurors of their
duty not to converse with others or conduct independent research
until a verdict is rendered. But recent use of electronic and
wireless devices by jurors has caused mistrials, overturned
convictions, and court delays. In 2009 a San Francisco Superior
Court judge dismissed 600 potential jurors after several
acknowledged going online to research the criminal case before
them. Additionally, in 2001 a federal drug trial in Florida
ended in a mistrial when eight jurors admitted to conducting
AB 2217
Page 3
Internet research on the case they were hearing.
It is believed that more explicit mention in jury instructions
of the various methods and modes of electronic communication and
research would help jurors better understand and adhere to the
scope of the prohibition against the use of these devices. The
Judicial Conference of the United States, the policy-making body
of the federal courts, has attempted to address this growing
problem through the release of model jury instructions. The
model jury instructions the Judicial Conference released to the
federal judiciary specify:
You may not communicate with anyone about the case on
your cellphone, through e-mail, Blackberry, iPhone,
text messaging, or on Twitter, through any blog or
website, through any internet chat room, or by way of
any other social networking websites, including
Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn and YouTube.
California has also attempted to address the problem of improper
juror use of electronic and wireless devices. California Civil
Jury Instruction 100, which is given at the outset of every
civil case, includes the following admonitions:
Do not post any information about the trial or your
jury service on the Internet in any form. Do not send
or accept any messages, including e-mail or text
messages, to or from anyone concerning the trial or
your service. ...
Do not do any research on your own or as a group. Do
not use dictionaries, the Internet, or other reference
materials. Do not investigate the case or conduct any
experiments.
California Criminal Jury Instruction 101 includes similar
provisions:
Do not share information about the case in writing, by
email, or on the Internet. ... During the trial, do
not read, listen to, or watch any news report or
commentary about the case from any source.
Do not do any research on your own or as a group. Do
not use a dictionary, the Internet, or other reference
AB 2217
Page 4
materials. ...
If you have a cell phone or other electronic device,
keep it turned off while you are in the courtroom and
during jury deliberations. An electronic device
includes any data storage device. If someone needs to
contact you in an emergency, the court can receive
messages that it will deliver to you without delay.
This bill seeks to statutorily authorize the above type of
admonishments and clarify the scope of the prohibition against
the use of these devices under California law. It also seeks to
provide courts with the authority to enforce the prohibition by
holding a disobedient juror in contempt.
Apropos of the consensus support for this measure at this time
are the comments submitted to the Judiciary Committee by the
Judicial Council, which include that:
The Judicial Council is extremely concerned that
jurors' use of electronic devices during the course of
a trial is becoming an increasingly significant threat
to the integrity of the justice system. While existing
law may indeed cover the use of improper use of
electronic communications by jurors, the courts would
welcome the clear statutory directive that the
admonition address the issue. In addition, as
important as the admonition is, the statutory
clarification that violators may be held in contempt
of court is important, and would provide the court
with necessary enforcement tools for use in
appropriate cases.
Additional comments of support include those of the Consumer
Attorneys of California, stating in part that:
Recently, a number of instances of juror misconduct
have resulted in mistrials, which can further add to
the rising costs of litigation. Broader access to
smart-phones and PDA devices have come at a cost to
California litigants. In almost every state, courts
have confronted incidents where a juror impermissibly
accesses Google, Wikipedia, Facebook, Twitter, or
Myspace to discuss the case or conduct amateur
investigations of the evidence and the parties.
AB 2217
Page 5
Analysis Prepared by : Drew Liebert / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
FN: 0005596